Wow, This Got my attention.....

Here's a guy who's got it all figured out....

humanknowledge.net...

Originally posted by Koka
I agree, but thats not what I have done, I was brought up a non-practising Christian, decided it was a crock as it seemed to divide people rather than bring them together, moved on to spirituality decided it had very little grasp on reality and now deal with logic and common sense, I would consider that, at least to some degree, Evolution.
[edit on 14-10-2009 by Koka]

Fascinating. So, I wonder what reality thinks about all of this?

Human beings are the only infinitesimal bits of circumstantial juxtaposition that even imagine to feel empowered to dismiss that which may (or may not) be greater than they could ever be themselves. Thank goodness that they eventually emerge as dynamic additions to the whole of eternity, and (for the most part) shake that idiocy to some extent. Otherwise, the whole friggin' lot of them would be a plague on existence.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by NorEaster]

Originally posted by NorEaster
Fascinating. So, I wonder what reality thinks about all of this?

Human beings are the only infinitesimal bits of circumstantial juxtaposition that even imagine to feel empowered to dismiss that which may (or may not) be greater than they could ever be themselves........

Being sentient affords me this privilege, as it does you, if you should choose to exercise it.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Conclusion

 

OP I believe this is the "nail in the coffin" you seek.
above top secret.........

Not.

The linked article is very well written and starts off all warm and fuzzy, lulling the incautious reader into thinking that the author is respecting the science, unlike the religious fundamentalists that are usually writing these things. The author seems to be mindful of the science behind DNA, and is trying to talk to those who are offended by the fundamentalists rejection of science.

Then he comes unstuck in an extremely spectacular fashion, but hides it in a throwaway assertion:

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.

That is wrong and is the basis of the entire rest of the article. He goes on to describe some interesting statistical factoids, then reveals his actual distrust and misunderstanding of DNA:

If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia.

Two things he isn't telling you about this:

(1) DNA replication 'mistakes' don't all cause disease. Some do, some don't, most are neutral, some are harmful in other ways, some are advantageous. This is the engine room of evolution, and if you are going to accept the science of DNA, like the author has pretended to do for the previous thousand words or so, then you have to accept and understand that simple fact.

(2) The particular mutation he is referring to actually PREVENTS disease, and it has maintained its place in the human gene pool precisely because of that. If all it did was cause sickle-cell anemia, it would have dropped out of the gene pool thousands of years ago, because sickle-cell sufferers die in childhood (without modern treatment), before they have born children to carry it on.

If you inherit the 'sickle cell' gene from ONE of your parents, you have a distinct advantage over other people if you live in malaria prone area like equatorial Africa or South America or Southeast Asia, because it protects against malaria. That means if you are more likely to survive childhood and reproduce than your friends who don't have the gene. It is only if you inherit the gene from BOTH your parents that you may get sickle-cell. Humans have had elaborate taboos about marrying folks too closely related for just this kind of thing. You don't have to be a modern scientist to notice that your kids tend die young if you marry too close.

The author continues to reveal his true loathing for the actuality of DNA science with this gem:

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work.

In fact the exact opposite is true. To believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style is to understand exactly how the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work.

He then goes completely off the rails:

It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!

And that is relevant exactly how? Scientists aren't studying evolution in order to build a human hair. Pharmaceutical companies might like to market something like that, I suppose, but why would you suppose that a scientist would show how a human hair would take a million years (or whatever) to evolve and then try to duplicate that over night (relatively speaking).

Building an actual human hair in a lab from scratch would probably disprove evolution anyway, so how you can anyone think that the lack of building one is an argument against evolution?

The only nail on the coffin I see here is the one with 'Credibility of Intelligent Design' written on it.

edit: grammar and spelling

[edit on 15/10/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by sirnex

 

Can you please tell me the evidence of evolution? I would love to know the,

without a doubt, undeniable, be all end all, irrefutable, no nonsense, can't

debate, bud light sponsored, in your face, check this out, now what, take that,

oh my God, proof that you or anyone else has.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof of anything that meets your criteria?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Here's a guy who's got it all figured out....

humanknowledge.net...

Well, he doesn't have it all worked out, even he admits that in a couple of places. But he does a fair summarization of lot of thought threads. He has read a lot, and thought a fair bit. I expect this was a lot of work.

It is flawed. His personal prejudices are apparent in a few places where he makes assertions without justification.

But overall I find it an interesting read, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

[edit on 15/10/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa


Yes.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by rnaa

 

Yes.

That's good. Because you won't find it in any science discipline. Or even in any non-science discipline, for that matter.

So that just about wraps it up for your thoughtfulness.

This thread is probably the biggest pile of nonsense I've seen on this particular forum. Let me start with the first article presented.

hubpages.com...

What do Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Kip Kinkle, have in common? Evolution!

Bull#. Saying that these men did what they did because of a "belief" in evolution is absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying X person had a ham sandwich on a Tuesday because they like basketball. Not related in the slightest bit.

the evolutionary bible(be sure to read the entire title) "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Really? The evolutionary bible? Give me a break. Also, the title of the book is being misunderstood by the author.


I'm not even going to go on. This article is a waste of time and a joke, simply an insult to any intelligent person. It's chock full of misconceptions, generalizations, and flat out lies. Like a lot of other creationist arguments, it throws in the "age of the earth" discussion, as if that has something to do with evolution. Fail argument is fail.

Originally posted by Conclusion
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
ore]

Failure to understand the definition of a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory.

A Scientific Theory is an attempt to explain an observable phenomena. It is based on something that can actually be observed, and Evolution has been observed. A Scientific Theory never becomes a Scientific Law. A Scientific Law is usually a mathematical statement.

Well, intelligent design is one thing, and intelligent design by the omnipotent, all seeing, all emcompassing, alpha and omega Lord God is quite another. As our scientific knowlege in genetics and such grows day by day, such a thing as genetic manipulation of a species is far from impossible. Maybe life evolved naturally to the point of producing our ape-like ancestors, and then some scientists from "out there" came upon out little planet, saw potential in those furry bipeds, and decided to tinker with our genetics for whatever ailien reason. Far fetched, to be sure, but far more plausable in my opinion than "Let there be light" and so on.

reply to post by rnaa


Hmmm. Maybe your right. But lets look at this for what it really is. You said from a scientific view point. From a scientific view point the answers always change. 20 to 50 years from now science will have new explanations for why evolution works the way it does. To me that means the science is wrong now concerning evolution. Just as in 20 to 50 years from now it will be wrong.

reply to post by PieKeeper


Lol. Well thx for your input anyway.

reply to post by AK49er


Its also as plausible as the Theory of Evolution.